netdev - Re: [PATCH] nfc: nci: assert requested protocol is valid

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ccf7072c-cebb-0491-f07e-8c781a2f4664@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 08:24:17 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 syzbot+0839b78e119aae1fec78@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
 Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc: nci: assert requested protocol is valid

On 07/09/2023 01:33, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> The protocol is used in a bit mask to determine if the protocol is
> supported. Assert the provided protocol is less than the maximum
> defined so it doesn't potentially perform a shift-out-of-bounds and
> provide a clearer error for undefined protocols vs unsupported ones.
> 
> Fixes: 6a2968aaf50c ("NFC: basic NCI protocol implementation")
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+0839b78e119aae1fec78@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=0839b78e119aae1fec78
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>
> ---
>  net/nfc/nci/core.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
> index fff755dde30d..6c9592d05120 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
> @@ -909,6 +909,11 @@ static int nci_activate_target(struct nfc_dev *nfc_dev,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (protocol >= NFC_PROTO_MAX) {
> +		pr_err("the requested nfc protocol is invalid\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

This looks OK, but I wonder if protocol 0 (so BIT(0) in the
supported_protocols) is a valid protocol. I looked at the code and it
was nowhere handled.

Original patch from Hilf Danton was also handling it (I wonder why Hilf
did not send his patch...)

https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=0839b78e119aae1fec78

Best regards,
Krzysztof